October 2021 (unfinished)
Plan: interpretations
Passage A argues Krushchev didnt have an impact on u/r living conditions - claims that VLC failure
“Inherent weakness of the USSR’s agricultural machinery” - the removal the MTS which reduced efficiency
“Disposable income rising faster than agriciculture could meet demand” - VLC failures
Passage B argues that it did.
Interpretation Question
Both Passage A and B give strong arguments on the impact of Krushchev’s domestic policies on urban and rural living conditions. Passage A argues that Krushchev’s policies did not have a particularly impactful effect on the living conditions of urban and rural people and that his policies lacked the insight to battle “inherent weaknesses” of the USSR and for this reason failed miserably. Passage B argues more truthfully that Krushchev’s policies did greatly impact the lives of the Russian people, most notably the urban living conditions with huge increases in housing and consumer goods. While it may be true that Krushchev’s policies were sometimes less impactful than they could have been his policies were still a huge break from the past and the lives of the urban and rural people did improve monumentally in comparison of the repressive rule of Stalin.
Passage A begins by arguing that weaknesses in machinery led to failures in his domestic policies. The passages states “inherent weakness of the USSR’s agricultural machinery and chemical industries posed serious economic obstacles.” This can be seen as valid because of the failings of Krushchev’s decision to remove Motor Tractor Stations. These stations maintained machinery for agriculture and the removal of them led to mass inefficiencies in the quality of the machines which farmers could use. This meant that food production fell and thus the lives of people, particularly the poorest peasants, had less food to feed their families and thus their lives did get worse. The passage further argues that food demands rose higher than production could meet. It states “The demand for food went up faster than the country could grow it”. This can be seen as valid because there was a minimum wage increase in 1956 meaning more people could buy food but the failings of the Virgin Land Campaign due to soil exhaustion after 1861 meant that there was little food for the increased wages to purchase. These failings effect urban people and rural people hugely as food is a necessity for survival. The reduction in food did lead to a spike in protests following 1861 showing how unsatisfied the Russian people were with their lives. Finally the passage finished by summarising that the domestic polices failed in their attempts in improving the Russian lives. It states that “he could not solve the essential problems.” This can be seen especially in the rural lives which lagged behind improvements in urban areas. There was still poor housing, limited electricity and minimal access to consumer goods. For this reason, especially in rural areas lives didn’t improve a huge amount under Khrushchev. However, a flaw of the passage is that it overstates the failings in agriculture, although the Virgin Land Campaign was relatively short lived its effect in the beginning was immensely impressive. From 1953-58 Grain production rose by over 50% bringing more food to the people in Russia. Furthermore, private plots expanded in 1958 which offered peasants a chance at increasing their incomes. This, in hand with taxation reductions, allowed more and more people to access consumer goods and food which was previously unheard of under Stalin. For this reason, it is very unreasonable to argue that all Khrushchev’s policies were failings when many of them did improve the lives of the average Russian. So, while Passage A is strong and does highlight some key failings in Khrushchev’s policy it fails to look at the bigger picture. When comparing quality of life with Stalin’s rule the increase in wellbeing was immense.
Passage B begins by highlighting how Khrushchev had intentions of improving the lives of the people from the beginning. It states that Khrushchev would “bring pancakes” highlighting its aim of bringing Russia goods which they had not yet experienced in previous forms of communism. This can be seen and valid because of the increases in consumer goods under Khrushchev. Under Khrushchev’s rule the number of washing machines increased from 1/1000 people to 71/1000 people. That is a huge increase and only one example of many improvements to consumer goods in his rule. This meant completing previously strenuous tasks became easier contributing to a increase in morale around Russia. Russia appeared to be moving towards a happier society and moving closer in line with the West. It then goes on to highlight one of Khrushchev’s greatest achievements; his role in improving the availability of housing. It states “large scale housing construction was a priority of Khrushchev’s government. This can be seen as true because housing stock doubled under Khrushchev. This was immensely important following WW2 where Russia had been absolutely ruined. Over 50 million people were homeless throughout the Russian Empire. Khrushchev provided over 10 million houses very quickly giving those in Russia who had never had a electricity, a front door etc one of their own. However, this did improve urban lives more than the poorest in society. Even so, This was a monumental improvement to the Russian lives. With all previous Russian leaders housing had not been a priority and was continuously undermined by the economy. This shows how big of a break from the past Khrushchev’s policy of housing was and the impact it had on lives of urban people was even greater. However, a flaw of the passage is that is does slightly overstate how impactful his domestic polices were on the quality of lives of all people in Russia. While it is true that his policies did majorly improve the lives of a lot of Russians there were areas which were neglected. Rural consumer goods were almost non existent as these areas mostly lacked the infrastructure. Furthermore much of the improvements was focused on within Russia itself and areas within the Empire like Ukraine and Kazakhstan saw less focus on housing despite the push for greater grain production in these areas. This means that while those who did feel the improvements had large increases in their quality of life, as a whole only some of society saw these improvements. Nevertheless, Passage B gives a stronger argument highlighting the improvements which Khrushchev brought to the lives of the people.
In conclusion Passage B gives a much stronger argument of the impact of Khrushchev’s domestic policies on the lives of the urban and rural people. While there is some truth in Passage A in that the Virgin land campaign was short lived and Khrushchev did contribute to some shortcomings in machinery efficiency. As a whole it is too negative. Khrushchevs rule led to a huge increase in the quality of life of the average Russian when comparing to previously repressive regimes such as Stalin. This isn’t to say that Khrushchev wasn’t repressive, because he was, seen in the Hungarian Uprising. However, when looking at the bigger picture he was a much more liberal dictator and did improve the living conditions of the Russian people, particularly in urban areas. Therefore Passage B is a stronger argument.
4*
War almost always leads to change. Trotsky called war ‘the locomotive of history’ highlighting its key role in dictating change. To operationalise ‘change’ a war must lead to a long lasting, highly impactful, and wide scale break from the past. The themes include: ideology, structure and repression. Arguably, war does usually lead to major change in government; seen evidently with WW1 which led to two shifts in ideology, from autocracy, to early democracy, to dictatorship.
Ideologically, war has led to major change. The Russia defeat in the Crimean War in 1856 saw a more liberal shift in Russia. The war made Alexander II aware of the need for change. This led to the Emancipation Edict of the serfs in 1861 which freed 23 millions serfs. This war brought about the beginning of industrialisation in Russia, and this was reflected in a more forward thinking government and a more liberal ideology. So war did lead to change. World War 1 is obviously the most important war in changing ideology. The war crippled the autocracy, and the regular increase in demands for more out of the people pushed revolution to force Nicholas II out of power. This is extremely monumental because it saw the end of a 300 year old regime, highlighting its incredible break from the past. Not only this but World War one further led to the undermining of the Provisional government where the war further drained the economy allowing the Bolsheviks and their promise for peace to flip support for the PG. This highlights how war can cripple ideology. Democracy never got a chance because its flame was put out by the draining demands of the war. World war 2 didn’t lead to a huge change but there was a change. Stalins death following WW2 and Khrushchev’s secret speech denouncing Stalin’s dictatorship and his leadership during the war led to a shift from Totalitarianism to Marxism-Leninism.